Rangitikei Advocate. THURSDAY, APRIL 2, 1908 EDITORIAL NOTES.

Rangitikei Advocate and Manawatu Argus, Volume XXXIII, Issue 9111, 2 April 1908, Page 4

Rangitikei Advocate. THURSDAY, APRIL 2, 1908 EDITORIAL NOTES.

THE panic as to the poaiiton of the British Navy which is being engineered by the opponents of the present Government for purely’parfcy purposes has little real foundation as is shown by the figures provided by Lord Brassey in a recent letter to the London Times. It is needless to say that Lord Brassey is an absolutely competent authority on naval matters. Dealing first with the manning of the fleets he quotes the following figures for 1907:—Germany 46,918, France 56,800, Great Britain 128,460. Therefore in men Britain is far ahead of the twoPower standard. As to ships, the following are the numbers of battleships completed less than 20 years old : Britain 52, Germany 22, Prance 21, and the average tonnage of .the British ships is 3000 greater than that of either the German or French vessels. Of armoured cruisers Britain has 33, Germany 19, and France 8. If we consider the situation in 1912 Britain will have 48 battleships under 20 years old, France 23, and Germany 24, but Britain can undoubtedly increase her lead if it should prove necessary to do so. In concluding his letter Lord Brassey says : ‘ ‘ Competent authorities abroad do not share the pessimistic views .held by some in our own country. In /considering Britain’s naval power the foreign observer looks beyond the estimates of the year and the official statistics as to men and ships. He measures our ability to man our Navy not only by numbers, but by personal qualities and training. In regard to ships types as well as numbers must be considered. Well-equipped dockyards at home and naval "stations abroad are essential factors. More than all these, maritime power depends largely on resources outside the Navy. Having these resources at command, there are advantages in holding our hand, as it has been said, within the limits of safety.

ONE of the most curious facts in connection with the Blackball strike is the reluctance of Ministers to take any action to uphold the law, and they appear to be anxious to avoid the subject altogether. But ignoring the fact will not dispose of it, although, of course it completely disproves the Premier’s recent assertion that strikes are impossible in New Zealand. Here we have a prolonged strike, and those taking part in it are jeering at the Ministry and daring Government to do its worst. We have also the strange spectacle of two Ministers actually trying to show that the law they assisted to make, with the object of preventing strikes, is absolutely useless for the purpose. Both Mr Millar and Dr Findlay are arguing that a strike cannot be aided and abetted after the moment of striking. If this is the law then it certainly requires speedy amendment, because a strike is continuous and only assumes its worst phases when the strikers are helped to continue their refusal to work, and when other bodies than the one directly interested become involved in the trouble. Another argument put forward to excuse Ministerial inaction and fear, is that if the Union will not pay the fine inflicted by the Court it cannot be collected from the men individually. In other words two Ministers have been engaged in proving that the Arbitration Act is a farce, and the Court is a useless body as there is no power to enforce its judgments when they are against employees or unions. All, therefore, that the Socialist Ministry has accomplished, has been to make a law which oppresses, harasses, and penalises employers, and lots employees go scot free.

AN extraordinary example of the policy of “cutting off one’s "nose to spite one’s face’’ was revealed in the Dunedin Police Court , on Monday. A young man, named McOaughan, aged 21, was annoyed at his mother’s marriage to a young man of about his own age and, therefore, in revenge took to wife his stepfather’s mother, a lady of 50 years. Within three days McOaughan found that it was not wise to enter upon the married state -in this rash and hasty manner as his wife sued him for maintenance for herself and two children by her former marriage. McOaughan, who was suffering from several ailments, and only earned’lss a week, was not in a position materially to assist in the maintenance of a family and the Magistrate, after commenting on the extraordinary character of the case, recommended the mature bride to take her husband home and look after him. To the moralist the situation offers a valuable opportunity for grave reflections and even the most casual critic cannot but remark on the extraordinary levity with which some people undertake the responsibilities of marriage. The complicated relationships introduced into the families concerned by McOaughan’s rash

action are almost too hopeless to be unravelled, the initial fact that the youthful bridegroom was his own stepfather’s stepfather being sufficient t 6 check further cprious investigation.